D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Because they're new to you.

Because if you actually read the books thoroughly, you'd see they aren't actually restrictions, and they're certainly not any different from what a D&D GM does. What they are is a description of your role as GM, codified in a way that previous games rarely did, because in those games, it was just expected you'd figure it out on your own or read Dragon Magazine and pick up stuff from there. Instead, PbtA took all that accumulated wisdom and bullet-pointed it.

Maybe, just maybe, that codified role is something people don't care for. It may be "accumulated wisdom" to you and certainly some of it likely applies to a D&D game, at least from time to time. But it's also very focused on the narrative, pushing the game forward, setting up tough choices. Take the last point - tough choices. Sometimes I throw those in now and then and in other campaigns depending on the group it never comes up. Yet as a GM for many PbtA games that's what you're instructed to do. Along with, of course, resource moves in cases where the characters fail or partially fail.

There's nothing wrong with any of that if it's what you want. But it's not that I don't want it because it's new, that's a derogatory assumption that gets repeated ad-nauseum. I don't want it because I prefer a more simulationist approach whether running a game or playing. I'm glad you have games you enjoy. The assumption we would also enjoy it if only we knew better is insulting.

 

[Faolyn]

Of course it doesn't. D&D never does because, as we've established, D&D isn't a simulation game. The mechanics are always divorced from the narrative. You could choose to narrate this effect any way that the table finds acceptable and that's groovy. The mechanics couldn't care less.

So, the notion of "mind contrl" basically goes out the window because D&D effects most certainly can force narratives on the players (not specific narratives, but, SOME sort of narrative) without any magic being used. You have disadvantage on your next attack because you were successfully attacked by someone using a specific kind of weapon. That is forcing a narrative on your character. That is forcing your character to behave in a manner you didn't choose, all without magic.

No, these are completely different things. Having a penalty to a roll is not the same thing as being forced to act in a particular way, nor does it force a narrative. Among other things, you aren't being forced to attack them or anyone else. You could literally just say "you're too annoying to bother with" and go away. Compare to the spell compelled duel, which (a) is specifically described as (magically) compelling the target into a duel and (b) prevents the target from moving away and gives the target disad on attacking anyone other than the caster.

 

[Campbell]

Because they're new to you.

Because if you actually read the books thoroughly, you'd see they aren't actually restrictions, and they're certainly not any different from what a D&D GM does. What they are is a description of your role as GM, codified in a way that previous games rarely did, because in those games, it was just expected you'd figure it out on your own or read Dragon Magazine and pick up stuff from there. Instead, PbtA took all that accumulated wisdom and bullet-pointed it.

I disagree. They're very different from what a sandbox GM is doing in trad games.

 

[Campbell]

You could just say that some games don't use a different approach. Same idea, not stating it as if it's an improvement.

Moving on from there being a conventional wisdom of what roleplaying games are and can be is an improvement from my perspective. Not marginalizing those who have tastes outside the mainstream is an improvement. Not the specific games and not the specific playstyles, but a more diverse hobby is a better hobby because more people can find their joy.

This is similar to what has happened in the board game space, where what we considered a board game here in the states was very biased around games like Monopoly, but now is much more diverse.

 

[Faolyn]

does anyone have any examples they could bring to the discussion of how social mechanics are implemented in some games other than DnD? i'm seems they manage to not make it mind control in other systems, or at least i never hear complaints of it being so...

In Monster of the Week, there's a move called Manipulate Someone. It can be used on another PC. If the manipulator succeeds on their roll, the target PC can choose to agree to be manipulated. If they agree, they get an XP and +1 forward. If the manipulator fails, the target PC gets an XP if they don't do what the manipulator wants.

I've run games where the target PC refused to be manipulated, even though it meant missing out on the XP and bonus.

 

[Faolyn]

I disagree. They're very different from what a sandbox GM is doing in trad games.

I don't think Micah is running sandboxes.

 

[pemerton]

Can you provide a description of moral line that doesn't use the words "moral line"? The definition seems pretty important to the subject at hand.

Moral: pertaining to how people should treat one another (perhaps also themselves; perhaps non-human animals; perhaps "the world"; etc). The domain of obligation and value.

A line is a boundary, a limit. To cross a line is to depart, to trespass, to transgress.

I gave an example of conflict across a moral line. Most choices that involve more than expedience, or estimation of the optimal solution in the face of uncertainty, involve a moral line of some sort. The typical D&D module has few or no such choices - unless they've changed a lot in the 5e era, these tend to foreground expedience and optimisation in the face of uncertainty. But they are the mainstay of a lot of RPGing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In Monster of the Week, there's a move called Manipulate Someone. It can be used on another PC. If the manipulator succeeds on their roll, the target PC can choose to agree to be manipulated. If they agree, they get an XP and +1 forward. If the manipulator fails, the target PC gets an XP if they don't do what the manipulator wants.

I've run games where the target PC refused to be manipulated, even though it meant missing out on the XP and bonus.

Its actually very similar to a method I usually recommend in its carrot-and-stick nature. Usually I'm talking about it in terms of mechanical penalties or benefits to going with the social skill result, but the principal is the same.

 

[pemerton]

But you aren't forced to take that trait.

Nor are you forced to play a RPG that has rules like those found in Classic Traveller or Pendragon.

 

[Emerikol]

I mean, given what we actually do see in 5e, I don't think there really is any room for debate, but I'm willing to leave it at "we agree to disagree".

There is a very big mushy middle that just plays the latest version of D&D. Counting them as having an opinion is a stretch.

Okay but if you get to presume bad-faith behavior on the part of the players, why should I have to labor under the notion that GMs only and exclusively engage in good-faith behavior? This is just part and parcel of the inherently biased double standard that I detest so much. GMs are presumed to be angels unless they've been proven to be devils, and players the exact opposite. It's infuriating; we presume blamelessness from the people who have the greatest potential for abusing their power, and we presume blame from the people who have the least ability to actually respond to abuse beyond dropping the nuclear option and ending the game entirely. Why? Why is that okay?

From what I have seen, most players do not. They may after they get to know a DM but not from the get go. So? I think DMs are trying to create a fun experience. I think players want to have fun but there is far more incentive to fudge or cheat their way if they think they won't be caught.

I just don't understand what is gained from this. It's a family heirloom poetry book. It doesn't have any mechanical value. Its presence doesn't harm anyone. Its destruction by flame (again, assuming the player is taking reasonable precautions) adds only the teeniest, tiniest bit of extra verisimilitude, at the price of destroying something anchoring the player to that character, something that if lost might genuinely remove their reason to keep playing in the game. Why is that a good thing? Why is it so gorram important to emphasize flammability by having this book be put at risk day in and day out simply because the character carries it to write in while they're resting?

Because, a book surviving over and over while steel swords are melting would be a verisimilitude smasher for the group. My players would start making jokes about that book.

Okay, but now you're saying there are things that can be so essential to playing the character, that could be taken away (after all, the GM is the final and ultimate authority, yes? The rules should never impinge on that authority, yes?), and if they did, it might actually be worse than just killing the character off outright. The example illustrates my point: there IS a line that a GM could cross, where if they did this thing, it would ruin your investment in the character, even if the thing they did was specifically done to enhance the verisimilitude of the experience. Consider, then, that there might be characters who feel similarly about that heirloom book of poetry and illustrations.

I'm saying that as DM I can object to game rules and change them if I see the need. I'm objecting to the level of arbitrariness. Better to just kill the character. The attachment of the character to the concept is not the primary concern in this situation.

Whether you consider the example far-fetched or not is, for me, not relevant. You now grok the feeling that the poetry-book-player would have. They would feel the same way you do, where it would genuinely be the kind of thing that might drive them away from the game entirely. They aren't being stupid, they aren't juggling the damned thing in the middle of a firefight. They just have it on their person so they can continue to add to it during their off time.

I don't really. To be honest this player is probably not best suited for my campaign anyway. I'm sure he will find one like yours that will accommodate what he wants. I don't see why the player can't just keep it in a safe place until he can retrieve it. Ignoring dangers is like a clanging bell saying the setting is not real.